logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.01.15 2012다18090
해고무효확인 등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In principle, a worker who has entered into an employment contract for a fixed period shall retire automatically if he/she fails to renew the employment contract upon the expiration of the fixed period.

However, even if the term of a labor contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc. expires, if there is a provision stating that a labor contract shall be renewed if certain requirements are met, or if there is a legitimate expectation that a labor contract shall be renewed due to the formation of trust between the parties to the labor contract and the renewal of the labor contract if certain requirements are met, in full view of various circumstances surrounding the labor contract such as the contents of the labor contract and the motive and circumstances leading up to the execution of the labor contract, the standards for renewal of the contract, etc., the establishment and actual conditions of the requirements or procedures related to the renewal of the contract, and the contents of the work performed by the workers, etc., the employer's refusal of the renewal of the labor contract unfairly

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1729, Apr. 14, 201). Meanwhile, Article 4 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Act”) provides that “An employer may employ a fixed-term worker for a period not exceeding two years (where a fixed-term employment contract is renewed repeatedly, the total period of his/her continuous employment does not exceed two years)” under the proviso to paragraph (1) provides that “An employer may employ a fixed-term worker for more than two years, and a fixed-term worker may employ a fixed-term worker for more than two years despite the absence or extinguishment of the proviso to paragraph (1).”

arrow